CST Law - Stansted McDonald's Carpark - MET Parking Services edit: *court date*

Fruitcake

KeithP said:

Poorly worded Particulars of Claim. No mention of what the driver is accused of doing wrong and trying to charge interest starting two days before the alleged parking event.

I don't understand that bit, although the dates are a confusing mixture of foreign and UK formats 
I made the date of the alleged event to be 21st Nov 2021, and the date interest was calculated from as19th Dec 2021.

KeithP

Fruitcake said:

KeithP said:

Poorly worded Particulars of Claim. No mention of what the driver is accused of doing wrong and trying to charge interest starting two days before the alleged parking event.

I don't understand that bit, although the dates are a confusing mixture of foreign and UK formats 
I made the date of the alleged event to be 21st Nov 2021, and the date interest was calculated from as19th Dec 2021.

Yes, I got that wrong. Didn't bother to take in the month info. Sorry.

nightfly99

Fruitcake said:

KeithP said:

Poorly worded Particulars of Claim. No mention of what the driver is accused of doing wrong and trying to charge interest starting two days before the alleged parking event.

I don't understand that bit, although the dates are a confusing mixture of foreign and UK formats 
I made the date of the alleged event to be 21st Nov 2021, and the date interest was calculated from as19th Dec 2021.

Yeah, the mixture of date format is weird!

nightfly99

AoS filed, I'll probably get my defence written up (c&p!) and e-mailed before Xmas.

nightfly99

Okay, well I've started putting together the defence using the hharry parts in the main template. I won't paste everything, just some bits I've changed.

There's a total of 33 points.

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the Defendant was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the PoC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

^ I changed the above from 'Driver' to 'Defendant'. I also changed 'POC' to 'PoC' for consistency as I noticed both 'POC' and 'PoC' are used.

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The PoC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the PoC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. The vehicle in question has never been owned by the Defendant nor are they aware of ever driving it. It is unclear from the PoC what the Claimant is claiming who the Defendant is, in relation to the vehicle.

^ Last 2 sentences I changed to suit.

5. The Defendant is aware of this notorious car park which has been featured in the national press and on national television. Here are two examples:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/10/parking-fine-starbucks-mcdonalds-stansted-southgate-park

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RcNM4SM0 (Joe Lycett on Channel 4)

The Claimant says that this is two car parks, but for all intents and purposes, this is a relatively small single car park (one way in and one out) that serves Starbucks and McDonalds, which is set up for the sole reason of extorting motorists out of money. There is no clear definition between the supposed two car parks.

^ My own words.

The PoC's (which I posted a picture up of) don't actually state that it is 2 car parks, only that the Defendant is accused of contravening the displayed terms and conditions. However, it doesn't say what the displayed T&C's are. Do I need to revise point 5?

The rest continues on as per the template.

patient_dream

nightfly99 said:

KeithP said:

Poorly worded Particulars of Claim. No mention of what the driver is accused of doing wrong and trying to charge interest starting two days before the alleged parking event.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th December, you have until Thursday 28th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th January 2024 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute. 

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Thanks, I will follow; but the interest is charged in the following month. So it isn't 2 days before the alleged offence.

Coupon-mad said:

You'll simply be using the hharry defence linked as an option in the third para of the Template Defence.

Is this Claim filed by CST Law?

The claimant is MET Parking Services Limited (London), but the address for sending documents is to CST Law in Sheffield.

Oh boy, THE MET PARKING SCAM AT STANSTED

First MET take on DCBL TO SCAM MONEY FROM YOU, WITH ALL THEIR CLOUD DREAMING JUNK and then they take on CST... WHAT A JOKE

This MET scam can be proven time and time again. CST are now heading  for one hell of a court spanking if they let this go to court. Judges are sick of this rubbish especially a known scam

Come on MET PARKING ..... one car park, you split into TWO to extort money from people, you belong in prison and certainly be banned by the DVLA

THIS IS A MET PARKING SCAM SITE

Coupon-mad

This seems a confused sentence:

It is unclear from the PoC what the Claimant is claiming who the Defendant is, in relation to the vehicle.

I'd change it to:

It is denied that the Defendant was the owner of this vehicle, which is not recognised. It is neither admitted nor denied that the Defendant was the hirer or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant is put to strict proof, if this poorly pleaded generic claim makes it past allocation stage.  Even if the vehicle was hired, this is not 'relevant land' and there can be no hirer liability under any rule of law. Not that this Claimant has stated on what basis they might rely on 'owner' or 'hirer' liability (which in this Airport location, they cannot).

nightfly99

Coupon-mad said:

This seems a confused sentence:

It is unclear from the PoC what the Claimant is claiming who the Defendant is, in relation to the vehicle.

I'd change it to:

It is denied that the Defendant was the owner of this vehicle, which is not recognised. It is neither admitted nor denied that the Defendant was the hirer or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant is put to strict proof, if this poorly pleaded generic claim makes it past allocation stage.  Even if the vehicle was hired, this is not 'relevant land' and there can be no hirer liability under any rule of law. Not that this Claimant has stated on what basis they might rely on 'owner' or 'hirer' liability (which in this Airport location, they cannot).

Great input. Will amend. Everything else look tidy? Shall I post the full defence before I email off to the CC?

nightfly99

patient_dream said:

nightfly99 said:

KeithP said:

Poorly worded Particulars of Claim. No mention of what the driver is accused of doing wrong and trying to charge interest starting two days before the alleged parking event.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th December, you have until Thursday 28th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th January 2024 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute. 

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Thanks, I will follow; but the interest is charged in the following month. So it isn't 2 days before the alleged offence.

Coupon-mad said:

You'll simply be using the hharry defence linked as an option in the third para of the Template Defence.

Is this Claim filed by CST Law?

The claimant is MET Parking Services Limited (London), but the address for sending documents is to CST Law in Sheffield.

Oh boy, THE MET PARKING SCAM AT STANSTED

First MET take on DCBL TO SCAM MONEY FROM YOU, WITH ALL THEIR CLOUD DREAMING JUNK and then they take on CST... WHAT A JOKE

This MET scam can be proven time and time again. CST are now heading  for one hell of a court spanking if they let this go to court. Judges are sick of this rubbish especially a known scam

Come on MET PARKING ..... one car park, you split into TWO to extort money from people, you belong in prison and certainly be banned by the DVLA

THIS IS A MET PARKING SCAM SITE

At this point I'm more than happy to go to court and hope I'm able to have my say and point my finger at the prosecution about why they openly represent a clear and obvious scam.

Coupon-mad

You didn't show us para 2 & 3 and the CEL v Chan images, but I presume you have them in your document.